Glyphosate/Roundup in Cheerios?! Who Knew?
jrb451
4 years ago
Featured Answer
Sort by:Oldest
Comments (27)
jrb451
4 years agoRelated Discussions
ajuga ground cover growing in lawn....Roundup?
Comments (23)Sounds encouraging. I'd read some mixed reports on the effectiveness of 2,4-D (alone) against Ajuga, but (possibly) better results with a 3-way product, which Killex is (2,4-D, Mecoprop-P, Dicamba) http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/lawns/msg0918365630041.html http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=276043 So, it will be interesting to see your results. Yes, you are right Killex is available (at Canadian Tire), but only in British Columbia, Alberta & Manitoba. You are in BC, right? I'm in QC...sigh. Kind of farcical really, this provincial herbicide 'ban', when commercial lawn care companies can readily get the stuff (and political parties also). At least a third of the residents on my estate have their lawns sprayed....whether they really need it or not. I reckon the previous owner of my house was one and that chemical-dependency was at least part of the reason for my lawn problems....all those dormant seeds. That's my excuse anyway. Anyhow, I'll persist with the Roundup (no other choice now). Whilst slow (it's been about 2 1/2 weeks) it does appear to be working. Probably would have been quicker if I'd sprayed affected areas, rather than leaf-painted, from the start. Seems kind of counter-intuitive to water the weeds, but keeping the treated areas moist definitely helps. So, at the current rate of progress I'm still hoping that I'll be able to over-seed by mid-September. The thing that concerns me though is the sheer number and variety of weeds that are still coming up. Sure, the best natural weed-defense is a thick turf, but I'm beginning to think that I really do need to tackle at least the perennial broad-leafs, and if possible the dense carpets of crabgrass, which are now starting to turn to seed. The white clover that is taking over some areas I can live with. In fact I'm not averse to the idea of a mixed grass-clover lawn, though I can't speak for the neighbors. But the black medic (yellow trefoil) that is prevalent on my front lawn is less desirable. As someone commented on another forum - organic living is all well and good but sometimes you need a prescription from the doctor. I have inquired whether one the lawn-care firms (the one that acknowledged they use herbicides) might do a one-off spray, but they are only interested in offering a 'full year' maintenance plan. There's no way I could manually pull all of this stuff, as adept as I am with a Weed-Hound, and a lot of it is now partially obscured by crabgrass and clover/black medic. So, I guess I could try the available iron-based Weed-B-Gon, several neighbors look like they are having some success, at least with spot sprayed dandelions, but I think I'd need a bit more than spot treatment. Or else see if I can get hold of some Killex (might come back you). The big question then is how much treatment at this stage would put back fall over-seeding (killing time plus soil residual to consider). Don't really want to wait until Spring, as I'd like to try and get an early start with a pre-emergent then. What to do? This post was edited by WorBry on Tue, Aug 20, 13 at 14:11...See MoreSprayed roundup weed killer
Comments (58)Yowza!!! The only statement that approaches any degree of accuracy in the above post is the one that suggests you do the research. Which the above poster has obviously not done. "Ask yourself basic logical questions like, how in the world can a toxic chemical intuitively know not to poison your tomato or your dog, but to target that bad dandelion only (for example)." The answer to that is simple and is the same principle behind the development of beneficial pharmaceuticals that target disease organisms. It's called 'mode of action' - glyphosate's mode of action is to disrupt a metabolic pathway that allows for the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. This metabolic pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals explains the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms. "It is extremely hazardous, and it is toxic to all life" Again, a completely erroneous statement. After some 40 years of the most extensive scientific testing any pesticide has ever undergone, glyphosate is considered to be of very low toxicity and therefore is NOT considered to be "extremely hazardous". And it is obviously not "toxic to all life" - it just simply does not work that way (see above re: mode of action) and if it did, it would not be on the market. And the declaration that it is a causation for cancer is still under debate by world health authorities. First, it has never been documented that gylphosate is carcinogenic with humans - that's probably the major bone of contention with this assessment. The association was made based on very limited epidemiological studies which have been disputed by non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. The bulk of the determination was based on studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. And these findings were considered by various other agencies involved in this assessment (IMPR, FAO/WHO) who concluded that “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting (IMPR) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (does glyphosate cause cancer?) Finally, had the above poster done her research, she would be aware that glyphosate is a non-specific herbicide. It does not just target weeds nor was it intended to just target weeds. This is a basic premise of any understanding of herbicides and to bother to post without knowing this elementary fact gives no credence to the rest of her rant. Junk science will always be junk science and simply spewing back sensationalized conclusions plucked from the online press without knowledge or understanding is merely ignorant fear mongering....See MoreOrganic vs. Round-up regarding surrounding desired plants
Comments (37)JAYK I feel (from my experience in local rose clubs and as the former internet consulting ARS rosarian for scientific studies (or some such title) that gardeners have had problems but they were not in a position to question "no underground spread" and had to assume that it must of been drift in spite of whatever precautions they took (I doublt if most knew about the possibilty of weed root to desired plant root transmission). Apparently Monsanto knew: earlier in this thread I quoted the following from another thread (the You was not you nor I): "You mentioned roses. This has been disputed before on GW but roses have many fine surface roots and weeds with similar roots mixed together with the rose roots, the roots are in contact with each other and translocation of the herbicide can take place. Glyphosate kills roots and all so it can kill the rose. This info was quoted to me a few years ago by a Monsanto representative." The scientific reviewed papers that I cited did not "all" agree that it only happened in exceptional purposes. For example I cited a 2006 paper: "There is a common understanding that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is easily degraded and adsorbed in soils and thus, harmless for use in agriculture. We can demonstrate, however, that this conclusion is wrong and dangerous for farmers because in former risk assessments the behaviour of glyphosate in the rhizosphere was not properly considered." Notice that the scientists, editor, and reviewers approved "wrong and dangerous". In my experience as a scientist I expect that the producers of farm glyphosate products would have immediately assigned their in house scientists and/or commissioned paid research to see if they could produce scientific evidence to disprove the paper. The paper was in 2006, I could not find any such disputing paper (apparently you were not able to either); instead I found a November 2007 published paper that supported it. Yes, there are conditions that favor spread and condition that will inhibit spread. Nature is complex. But to attempt to lump all conditions that favor spread into (the following is a quote from a statement that JAYK made in this thread): "unusual circumstances to create this movement, circumstances that are almost never seen in typical gardens." is in my mind the opposite of the actual situation, home gardens with acidic sandy loam soil are very common (even desired - "In general the best pH value range for soil is approximately 6 or 7 as this is the range in which most nutrients can be readily available" - http://www.gardenstew.com/blog/e3-9-soil-ph-and-its-effect-on-your-garden.html . Home gardens with high phosphate concentration (and acidic pH) are also very common - http://searchwarp.com/swa290149.htm. When scientists talk about sandy loam soil they are not talking about "very, very sandy soil situation" - see JAYK's first post, they are actually talking about a common soil: "Sandy loam topsoil is a material that most farmers are familiar with. Although unusual in urban Houston, it can be found north of town. It can be purchased or trucked in from a sight you are familiar with." It is common for gardeners to use a sandy loam soil mixed with compost" "Most experts find the best soil combines compost with a sandy loam topsoil." The quote is from the same link. H. Kuska comment - please note - compost has an acid increasing effect....See MoreGLYPHOSATE ON TRIAL
Comments (39)FWIW. I have used Glyphosate for several years, but always as "tool of last resort". I am not anti-chemical, as, after all, compost is a chemical cocktail, but I am always reluctant to use synthetic compounds. The manufacturers, even if they were 150% honest, CANNOT test their product to cover each and every possible scenario that the product could be used in. Even if they could, there is no way they can predict that it will NOT cause a problem 5/10/20 years down the track, as these are the timelines that cancers take to develop. A few years ago, while living in Australia, I had a discussion with a professional gardener, regarding Glyphosate. He was totally convinced that it was was harmless, to the extent that he was quite happy to prove his point, by drinking some of it in front of me. I have often wondered what happened to him. Fof...See MoreMichael
4 years agoOklaMoni
4 years agoAnglophilia
4 years agoAnnie Deighnaugh
4 years agomatthias_lang
4 years agoeandhl2
4 years agoCindyMac
4 years agolast modified: 4 years agoMichael
4 years agobleusblue2
4 years agojrb451
4 years ago
Related Stories

GARDENING GUIDESGreat Design Plant: Meadow Blazing Star (Liatris Ligulistylis)
Make fast friends with the monarch butterflies and get a color show too with this adaptable U.S. Midwest native
Full Story
GARDENING GUIDESMake Sure You Read This Before Buying New Plants
Follow these 10 plant-selection tips to avoid buyer’s remorse
Full Story
FARM YOUR YARDHow to Build a Raised Bed for Your Veggies and Plants
Whether you’re farming your parking strip or beautifying your backyard, a planting box you make yourself can come in mighty handy
Full Story
beesneeds